throbber
Case 1:20-cv-02320-PKC Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 1 of 31
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
` UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Index No.: 1:20-cv-02320
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
`:
`UBER, INC.,
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
`
`
`Plaintiff Uber, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Uber”), by and through its attorneys Leichtman Law
`
`PLLC, Tzimopoulos Law, P.C. and Mavronicolas Law Group PLLC, brings this action against
`
`Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Uber Technologies”), and alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for trademark infringement, reverse confusion, unfair competition
`
`and false designation of origin, deceptive trade practices, and unjust enrichment under federal,
`
`state, and common law. Plaintiff Uber brings this action in response to the unauthorized use of its
`
`trademark, “UBER,” by Defendant in connection with the advertising, promotion, and sale of
`
`Defendant’s services in commerce.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Uber is an award-winning creative and consulting services agency that
`
`provides advertising, business, and technology services, including but not limited to those with
`
`regards to graphic and electronic design, print design, packaging design, event design, social
`
`media advertising and strategy, creative consultation services, brand concept and brand
`
`development services, design of information graphics and data visualization materials, graphic
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02320-PKC Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 2 of 31
`
`illustration, and production (collectively referred to herein as “Plaintiff’s Business Services” or
`
`“Business Services”) based out of New York, New York, United States. Plaintiff Uber’s
`
`advertisements have been featured in international and national publications, and its services are
`
`regularly purchased or hired by private, public, and non-profit entities.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Uber originally incorporated on January 7, 1999. Over time, through
`
`diligent personal effort and significant financial investment by its principal and sole owner, Herta
`
`Kriegner, Plaintiff Uber grew from nothing into a premiere one-stop shop for its Business Services,
`
`utilized and sought after by well-known domestic and international brands.
`
`4.
`
`Since its incorporation, Plaintiff Uber has used the word mark “UBER” (the
`
`“Mark”, or “UBER”) throughout the State of New York and throughout the United States in
`
`connection with the advertising, sale, and promotion of Plaintiff’s Business Services to the general
`
`public.
`
`5.
`
`The primary means by which Plaintiff Uber promotes the Mark is through its
`
`websites, www.uber-inc.com and www.uber.nyc. In addition to online points of contact,
`
`Plaintiff’s Business Services—readily identifiable to consumers via the Mark—have been
`
`promoted and advertised to clients and third-party consumers, through distribution of its work, by
`
`word of mouth, in print publications, through sponsorships, at large-scale vendor events, and
`
`through recognition from multiple award academies.
`
`6.
`
`Since its inception, Plaintiff Uber has continuously and prominently used UBER as
`
`a trade name and service mark in connection with the promotion, sale and offers to sale, and
`
`advertisement of Plaintiff’s Business Services to consumers and the general public.
`
`7.
`
`On June 8, 2019, after having continuously used the Mark in connection with the
`
`sale, promotion and advertisement of Plaintiff’s Business Services for over two decades, Herta
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02320-PKC Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 3 of 31
`
`Kriegner (“Ms. Kriegner”), the President and sole owner of Plaintiff Uber, filed an application on
`
`Plaintiff Uber’s behalf for federal trademark registration of the Mark with the United States Patent
`
`and Trade Office (the “USPTO”), in connection with the advertising and sale of its Business
`
`Services in both Classes 35 and 42 (the “Application”), serial number 88465110. The Application
`
`has been assigned to Plaintiff Uber, and is pending.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant Uber Technologies is a multi-billion dollar technology company
`
`offering a variety of business and technology services to consumers, including but not limited to
`
`ride-sharing, food delivery, employment recruiting, and logistics (such as freight shipping).
`
`Defendant incorporated on July 16, 2010, approximately eleven (11) years after Plaintiff had been
`
`continuously using the Mark in commerce in connection with the advertising, sale, and promotion
`
`of its Business Services.
`
`9.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant’s revenue generation and consumer brand
`
`awareness are largely due in part to aggressive and large-scale advertising. The primary method
`
`by which Uber Technologies has and continues to promote, sell, and advertise its services to
`
`consumers in commerce nationwide is through use of the word “Uber” as an abbreviation of its
`
`full business name.
`
`10.
`
`It is undisputed that since at least 2012, Uber Technologies’ executive and/or
`
`managerial personnel have had actual knowledge of Plaintiff Uber’s business existence and its
`
`brand. This actual knowledge included the fact that Uber Technologies knew that Plaintiff Uber
`
`used the Mark as their sole brand identity to the consuming public and had been using it for years
`
`prior to Uber Technologies’ existence.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02320-PKC Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 4 of 31
`
`11.
`
`Despite having actual knowledge of Plaintiff Uber’s trademark usage for many
`
`years, the single word “Uber” has and continues to permeate Defendant’s business offerings as its
`
`brand identification to consumers, to the Plaintiff’s detriment.
`
`12.
`
`Since Uber Technologies came into existence eleven (11) years ago and began
`
`using the word “Uber” in its marketing, consumers, employees and contractors of the Defendant,
`
`and government agencies have repeatedly and overwhelmingly confused Plaintiff’s business as
`
`Defendant’s. This confusion has included, but is not limited to, Uber Technologies’ own
`
`employees arriving at Plaintiff’s office mistakenly believing it to be their own, Plaintiff receiving
`
`almost daily calls from angry Uber Technologies consumers, visits from disgruntled Uber
`
`Technologies consumers, demands from Uber Technologies’ employees, contractors and affiliates
`
`requesting compensation or seeking customer support, and New York State Unemployment
`
`Insurance and Worker’s Compensation claims directed at Defendant which are charged to
`
`Plaintiff’s insurance. In addition to the aforementioned confusion, Plaintiff has and continues to
`
`receive harassing and threatening communications from Uber Technologies consumers and
`
`contractors, and numbers of Defendant’s employees—including senior executives—have and
`
`continue to identify themselves on social media and elsewhere as being employees of Plaintiff
`
`Uber. In other words, the confusion between Plaintiff and Defendant is rampant and out of control.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff has and continues to receive from federal, state, and local agencies and
`
`private claimants, workers compensation requests, wage garnishment requests, employee
`
`background check requests, child support documentation, unemployment insurance forms,
`
`subpoenas, and litigation related documents intended for Uber Technologies.
`
`14.
`
`Because this confusion has, and continues to, cause extreme disruption and burden
`
`Plaintiff Uber’s business, Plaintiff Uber has attempted on numerous occasions throughout the years
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02320-PKC Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 5 of 31
`
`to contact Defendant in an effort to resolve this ongoing issue. In response, Defendant has done
`
`virtually nothing to ease the confusion and address the deluge of daily items misdirected at Plaintiff
`
`intended for Defendant.
`
`15.
`
`Defendant’s lack of attention to the confusion belies a complete lack of good faith
`
`in addressing the confusion it has caused.
`
`16. While Plaintiff was trying to persuade Uber Technologies to address the confusion
`
`with no success, it did not file a lawsuit until now because Plaintiff was concerned about the
`
`expense to do so and understood that Uber Technologies’ business did not compete with Plaintiff’s
`
`business.
`
`17.
`
`However, Plaintiff recently learned that Uber Technologies recently created a new
`
`business division entitled “Uber Design,” supported by websites located at www.brand.uber.com
`
`and www.medium.com/uber-design, and with its principal location in New York.
`
`18.
`
`Upon information and belief, the services offered in connection with Uber
`
`Technologies’ new division relate to the provision of digital tools, platforms, and guidelines to
`
`enable consumers to utilize Uber Technologies in ways that compete directly with Plaintiff’s
`
`business.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant Uber Technologies has pursued multiple federal trademark registrations
`
`with the USPTO for its variety of products, most of which contain the word “Uber” at least as a
`
`partial component. Some registrations are based on actual use, while others are based on an intent-
`
`to-use basis.
`
`20. Many of Defendant’s federal trademark registrations cover services in Classes 35
`
`and 42, in direct competition with Plaintiff Uber’s Business Services and Application.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02320-PKC Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 6 of 31
`
`21.
`
`On September 12, 2019, Plaintiff received an Office Action response from the
`
`USPTO on its Application, indicating amongst other things that its registrability was at risk of
`
`being rejected due to a likelihood of confusion due to similarity to Uber Technologies’ trademark
`
`applications and registrations.
`
`22. While Plaintiff Uber has, for multiple years and as the lawful senior user of the
`
`Mark, attempted to confront junior user Uber Technologies on numerous occasions about ceasing
`
`use of the Mark, Uber Technologies has brazenly ignored Plaintiff’s pleas for consideration and
`
`reconciliation, and has instead chosen to saturate the consumer marketplace with unauthorized use
`
`of the Mark for its own commercial benefit, including expansion of the Mark into Plaintiff’s
`
`Business Services. The recent Office Action received by Plaintiff, coupled with Defendant’s
`
`recent entrance into Plaintiff’s line of business as a direct competitor with “Uber Design” and the
`
`likelihood that it will attempt federal trademark registration of the same, has added to the actual
`
`confusion, created a further likelihood of confusion amongst consumers as to the source of both
`
`parties’ services, and indicates manifestation into bona fide willful trademark infringement of, and
`
`tortious interference with, Plaintiff’s business, without justification.
`
`23.
`
`As the first user in commerce of the Mark, Plaintiff Uber is the lawful and equitable
`
`owner of the Mark, and this action is commenced in order to ensure that its brand, business, and
`
`goodwill will no longer suffer as a result of Uber Technologies’ willful, wanton, and intentional
`
`infringement, deceptive trade practices, and unfairly competitive use of Plaintiff’s Mark.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02320-PKC Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 7 of 31
`
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff Uber is a New York corporation with its principal place of business and
`
`24.
`
`headquarters located at 231 West 29th Street, Suite 906, New York, New York 10001.
`
`25.
`
`Defendant Uber Technologies is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business and headquarters located at 1455 Market Street, 4th Floor, San Francisco, California
`
`94103. According to the Delaware Department of State, Defendant has designated National
`
`Registered Agents, Inc., 160 Greentree Drive, Suite 101, Dover, Delaware 19904, as its registered
`
`agent upon whom process against Defendant may be served.
`
`26.
`
`In addition, Defendant is registered in New York as a foreign business corporation,
`
`with its principal place of business located at 111 Eighth Avenue, New York, New York 10011.
`
`According to the New York Department of State, Defendant has, for the purposes of this entity
`
`registration, designated C T Corporation System, 28 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10005
`
`as its registered agent upon whom process against Defendant may be served. Moreover, on
`
`information and belief, the principal location from which Defendant offers its design services
`
`under the “Uber Design” brand name is in New York, New York.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`27.
`
`This action arises under the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq. (the
`
`“Lanham Act”), and the laws of the State of New York.
`
`28.
`
`This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). This court has supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims
`
`asserted herein under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Alternatively, this Court has jurisdiction over this
`
`action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the parties are citizens of different states and the
`
`amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02320-PKC Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 8 of 31
`
`29.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Uber Technologies because the
`
`injuries Plaintiff complains of herein occurred in the State of New York, because Defendant is
`
`registered as a foreign business corporation and has a principal place of business in the State of
`
`New York, and because it transacts a significant amount of business in the State of New York.
`
`30.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a
`
`substantial number of the events and omissions giving rise to this action occurred in this District.
`
`BACKGROUND FACTS
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff Uber is an award-winning seller of its Business Services to business
`
`entities and individuals.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff has won many awards for its Business Services, including from prestigious
`
`design competitions and authorities, such as the Hermes Creative Award in 2009, the Summit
`
`Creative Award in 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2006, the Communicator Awards in 2001 and 2015, as
`
`well as many more.
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff Uber primarily promotes and advertises its Business Services to the public
`
`through its websites, www.uber-inc.com and www.uber.nyc, as well as by sponsoring high-profile
`
`events, purchasing advertisement pages in print publications, and through word-of-mouth
`
`references from preexisting clients. True and correct copies of a portion of the www.uber-inc.com
`
`and www.uber.nyc websites’ home pages, an example of one of Plaintiff’s magazine
`
`advertisements, certain awards Plaintiff has won for its Business Services, as well as a flyer for
`
`one of Plaintiff’s sponsored events, all showcasing Plaintiff’s use of the Mark in its business
`
`advertising, are hereto attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff Uber was incorporated on January 7, 1999. By at least January 1999,
`
`Plaintiff began using UBER as both a trade name and as a service mark in the State of New York.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02320-PKC Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 9 of 31
`
`35. Ms. Kriegner is of European descent. “Über” is a European word which denotes
`
`an outstanding or supreme example of a particular kind of person or thing. Ms. Kriegner
`
`purposefully adopted the UBER word mark as Plaintiff’s business brand identity to indicate to
`
`consumers that Plaintiff’s services were of extraordinarily superior quality, with a hint of European
`
`sophistication and flair.
`
`36.
`
`The Mark is arbitrary in describing the Business Services that Plaintiff sells to
`
`consumers and the public. Because it is arbitrary, it is inherently distinctive, and in any event has
`
`acquired secondary meaning to consumers throughout the years as a source identifier for Plaintiff’s
`
`Business Services.
`
`37.
`
`Since at least January 1999, Plaintiff Uber has and continues to use UBER as a
`
`distinctive trade name and trademark continuously, prominently and openly to represent its
`
`company and its business, the services it provides, and its unique and special business character.
`
`In order to successfully and efficiently promote and advertise Plaintiff’s Business Services,
`
`Plaintiff adopted the Mark immediately upon its incorporation as both a trade name and as a service
`
`mark so as to concisely inform consumers of the source of the services they provide for sale. Since
`
`at least January 7, 1999, Plaintiff Uber has continuously used the Mark in connection with
`
`promoting, advertising, and selling its services to consumers.
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff is the current owner of the domain names for four (4) different websites:
`
`www.uber.nyc,
`
`www.uber-inc.com,
`
`www.ubercustomerservice.com,
`
`and
`
`www.ubercustomercare.com. Plaintiff purchased these domain names in order to be able to
`
`effectively market, promote, and represent its brand to consumers nationwide. These web pages
`
`are accessible to consumers anywhere, and Plaintiff Uber intentionally invested in these websites
`
`so as to increase their brand visibility past consumers in the State of New York and internationally.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02320-PKC Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 10 of 31
`
`39.
`
`Since its inception and through its quality-controlled branding and advertising
`
`efforts, Plaintiff Uber has sold its Business Services to high-profile domestic and international
`
`clients such as BMW North America, Smithfield Foods, Clinique, and Macy’s, and earned a
`
`reputation as an exceptional brand for design services of many types.
`
`40.
`
`Defendant Uber Technologies, a business services and technology company
`
`offering a variety of services to consumers, incorporated on July 16, 2010, approximately eleven
`
`(11) years after Plaintiff had been continuously using the Mark in commerce for sale of its Business
`
`Services.
`
`41.
`
`Defendant began by simply providing technology services that included the
`
`software used to facilitate a ride-sharing service to consumers, but has since diversified its business
`
`services portfolio exponentially, now offering services ranging from food delivery (Uber Eats) to
`
`logistics such as freight shipping (Uber Freight), employment recruiting (Uber Works), and most
`
`recently, design services in direct competition with Plaintiff (Uber Design).
`
`42.
`
`Since its incorporation, Defendant has grown astronomically in the consumer
`
`marketplace in brand awareness and, consequentially, in revenue, now allegedly valued at billions
`
`of dollars. For example, Uber Technologies recently reported that its quarterly revenue for the
`
`quarter ended December 2019 was approximately $4.1 billion.
`
`43.
`
`The primary method by which Uber Technologies has and continues to promote,
`
`sell, and advertise its services to consumers in commerce is through use of the word “Uber” as an
`
`abbreviation of its full business name.
`
`44.
`
`In fact, the word “Uber” has become the sole moniker by which Uber Technologies
`
`identifies itself in the marketplace, attached only to other words to indicate other services it
`
`provides (e.g. Uber Air, Uber Eats, Uber Freight, Uber Works, Uber Design).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02320-PKC Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 11 of 31
`
`45.
`
`The single word “Uber” has and continues to permeate Defendant’s business
`
`offerings, ranging from its ubiquitous ride-sharing software application (downloadable for free to
`
`consumer’s personal telephones) to its various print and digital advertisements, and through its
`
`website, www.uber.com, which is strikingly and confusingly similar to that of Plaintiff’s. Upon
`
`information and belief, Uber Technologies has never marketed itself to consumers as “Uber
`
`Technologies,” and has now monetized the word “Uber,” standing alone, to the tune of many
`
`billions of dollars. True and correct copies of a portion of Uber’s website homepage, where the
`
`“Uber” word is prominently displayed, and advertisements showing the same are attached hereto
`
`as Exhibit 2.
`
`46.
`
`On May 10, 2012, less than a year after Uber Technologies entered the New York
`
`marketplace with its ride-dispatching services, and after receiving numerous calls at her business
`
`for a car service, Ms. Kriegner attended the RandLuxury Review conference held at Metropolitan
`
`Pavilion in the State of New York. There, she saw a table set up for Defendant Uber Technologies
`
`and first became aware of Defendant’s existence. After approaching the two individuals at the
`
`table— who identified themselves as Josh Mohrer, the ex-General Manager of Uber Technologies’
`
`New York office, and Ed Casabian, an ex-marketing representative of Defendant— and informing
`
`them that Plaintiff had been operating under the same business name for over a decade and that
`
`she was receiving calls directed to Defendant, Ms. Kriegner was told by the two Uber Technologies
`
`employees cavalierly that she should change Plaintiff’s business name “because they [Defendant]
`
`are growing.”
`
`47.
`
`Over the next several years, the calls looking for Defendant at Plaintiff’s business
`
`increased. Angry consumers, Uber Technologies employees and contractors, and other various
`
`individuals mistakenly believing Plaintiff to be Uber Technologies were repeatedly harassing
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02320-PKC Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 12 of 31
`
`Plaintiff, despite being informed by Ms. Kriegner of the lack of relationship or affiliation, or
`
`endorsement of, Defendant’s business.
`
`48. When Defendant refused to act to make any effort to stop the confusion in the
`
`marketplace, Plaintiff spoke with the press, and the case garnered national attention.
`
`49.
`
`For example, on November 25, 2014, the New York Post published an article titled,
`
`“Uber makes life miserable for design company with the same name” on its website,
`
`www.nypost.com, further putting Uber Technologies as a whole on constructive notice that the
`
`confusion was damaging Plaintiff’s business and goodwill. On December 5, 2014, the New York
`
`Times published an additional article titled, “über vs. Uber” on its website, www.nytimes.com.
`
`MYFOXNY thereafter posted a substantially similar article on the same day. True and correct
`
`copies of these articles as published are hereto attached as Exhibit 3.
`
`50.
`
`Starting in approximately December 2015, Plaintiff began explicitly telling all
`
`misinformed callers to contact Mr. Casabian directly. Upon information and belief, after
`
`complaining to Ms. Kriegner that he couldn’t handle the volume of calls he was receiving, and
`
`after Ms. Kriegner again requested that Uber Technologies implement a solution to mitigate further
`
`confusion between the parties, Mr. Mohrer contacted Ms. Kriegner on Defendant’s behalf to
`
`discuss resolving the conflict.
`
`51.
`
`On December 18, 2015, Mr. Mohrer and Ms. Kriegner met in person, and Mr.
`
`Mohrer offered Plaintiff $80,000.00 USD on the condition that Plaintiff change its business name
`
`entirely, despite the fact that Plaintiff had senior rights in the Mark, had invested at that point
`
`nearly two decades of sweat equity into the brand, and the company represented Ms. Krieger’s
`
`life-work.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02320-PKC Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 13 of 31
`
`52.
`
`On February 23, 2016, Ms. Kriegner sent Mr. Mohrer an e-mail correspondence
`
`rejecting his offer, counter-offering with a demand of $800,000.00 USD and detailing the
`
`grievances Plaintiff had suffered as a business as a result of Defendant’s infringing junior usage
`
`of the Mark. This correspondence explained all of the costs and efforts that would be required in
`
`order for Plaintiff Uber to change its name as Defendant proposed, and that such costs would
`
`continue to increase so long as the matter was left unattended to reflect the actual damages Plaintiff
`
`had suffered, the funds needed to rectify the harm already caused, and what would be needed for
`
`Plaintiff to rebrand itself. A true and correct copy of this e-mail correspondence is attached hereto
`
`as Exhibit 4.
`
`53.
`
`On February 24, 2017, after one year had passed and having never received a
`
`response from Mr. Mohrer about her counter-offer, Ms. Kriegner again e-mailed Mr. Mohrer
`
`detailing additional misdirected claims and tangible goods sent to her office directed towards Uber
`
`Technologies, and requesting a response to her counter-offer. A true and correct copy of this e-
`
`mail correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
`
`54.
`
`On February 26, 2017, Mr. Mohrer responded by e-mail to Ms. Kriegner and
`
`suggested a telephone conversation. Ms. Kriegner and Mr. Mohrer spoke on the telephone on
`
`February 27, 2016, in which he claimed that the most Defendant could offer was $120,000.00 USD
`
`to compensate Plaintiff, and again insisting that the $120,000.00 USD was conditioned on Plaintiff
`
`changing its company name and brand. Ms. Kriegner rejected this updated offer from the
`
`Defendant as insufficient, and has not heard from Mr. Mohrer or Defendant since, despite multiple
`
`efforts over several years to further engage in conversation.
`
`55.
`
`Since these exchanges, Ms. Kriegner has attempted on multiple occasions to contact
`
`individuals at Uber Technologies about Defendant’s improper uses of the Mark and the damage
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02320-PKC Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 14 of 31
`
`the confusion has caused to Plaintiff, to no avail. As examples, true and correct copies of one such
`
`e-mail exchange between Ms. Kriegner and one Uber Technologies employee describing a
`
`particularly misguided and harassing phone call Plaintiff received on November 7, 2017, as well
`
`as a message Ms. Kriegner sent to Mr. Mohrer over LinkedIn on February 8, 2019, are attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit 6, with personally identifying information redacted.
`
`56.
`
`Besides suffering, on a daily basis for over a decade, from angry and harassing
`
`phone calls intended for Uber Technologies, Plaintiff has received a persistent barrage of
`
`additional unwanted communications and interference with its business operations as a result of
`
`the consumer confusion between Uber, Inc. and Uber Technologies. This confusion has included,
`
`but is not limited to, scheduled shipments of tangible goods (approximately 10,000 backpacks) in
`
`Uber Technologies’ name to Plaintiff’s office, Uber Technologies’ own employees or contractors
`
`arriving at Plaintiff’s office mistakenly believing it to be their own, and Plaintiff receiving multiple
`
`telephone calls and correspondences almost every single day from angry consumers and Uber
`
`Technologies employees or contractors requesting compensation or customer support. A true and
`
`correct copy of a call log reflecting a sample of misdirected calls is attached hereto as Exhibit 7,
`
`with personally identifying information redacted.
`
`57.
`
`Indeed, some of Defendant’s own senior executives have even identified
`
`themselves as being employed by Uber, Inc. Remarkably, both Mr. Mohrer and Mr. Casabian,
`
`who were well aware personally of the difference between the two companies, listed their
`
`employers as “Uber, Inc.,” indicating that the confusion has permeated well beyond the
`
`uninformed public. True and correct copies of screenshots of Mr. Mohrer’s and Mr. Casabian’s
`
`LinkedIn pages as of December 19, 2015 showcasing the misattributed employment are hereto
`
`attached as Exhibit 8.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02320-PKC Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 15 of 31
`
`58.
`
`The confusion in the marketplace has and continues to extend to federal and state
`
`government agencies, law offices, and private and public companies. Plaintiff has and continues
`
`to receive workers compensation requests, wage garnishment requests, small business loan
`
`documentation, employee background check
`
`requests, child support documentations,
`
`unemployment insurance forms, subpoenas, and lawsuit documents intended for Uber
`
`Technologies personnel but directed to Plaintiff’s attention. A true and correct copy of examples
`
`of a portion of these documents, addressed to Uber, Inc. and clearly confusing Plaintiff as Uber
`
`Technologies, is attached hereto as Exhibit 9, with personally identifying information redacted.
`
`59.
`
`The confusion in the marketplace has even extended to artificial intelligence. For
`
`example, consumers utilizing iPhone’s “Siri” virtual assistance feature are constantly mislead to
`
`believe that Uber Technologies is in fact Plaintiff. True and correct copies of examples of the
`
`results that “Siri” generates when consumers request information for Uber Technologies are hereto
`
`attached as Exhibit 10.
`
`60.
`
`As if things could not get any more difficult for Plaintiff to run its business without
`
`interference, on April 29, 2019, Ms. Kriegner ran a credit report with Equifax, a credit reporting
`
`agency for businesses, which rated Plaintiff’s business as an “F.” This credit report has Plaintiff’s
`
`correct address, but the business name is incorrectly listed as Uber Technologies, Inc., mistakenly
`
`lists an Uber Technologies driver as an employee of Plaintiff, and identifies Plaintiff as having
`
`liens and judgments against it (which it does not). A true and correct copy of a screenshot of this
`
`credit report is hereto attached as Exhibit 11.
`
`61.
`
`The confusion and interruption to Plaintiff’s business is so burdensome that Ms.
`
`Kriegner was forced to develop an entire new page on Plaintiff’s website, www.uber.nyc, titled
`
`“Uber vs. Uber” in an attempt to steer confused, mistaken customers back to Defendant and put
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02320-PKC Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 16 of 31
`
`customers on constructive notice of the lack of relationship. In addition to the new page, Plaintiff
`
`was forced to place a distracting pop-up notice on its homepage explaining the same. A true and
`
`correct copy of a portion of the “Uber vs. Uber” comparison page on Plaintiff’s website is hereto
`
`attached as Exhibit 12.
`
`62.
`
`On June 8, 2019, after having continuously used the Mark in connection with the
`
`sale, promotion and advertisement of its services for over two decades, Ms. Kriegner filed the
`
`Application for federal trademark registration of the Mark with the USPTO, in connection with
`
`the advertising and sale of creative design services in Classes 35 and 42. The Application is still
`
`pending. Plaintiff Uber is the lawful owner of the trademark rights in the Application and the
`
`Mark.
`
`63.
`
`Since its inception, Uber Technologies has pursued multiple federal trademark
`
`registrations with the USPTO for its variety of products, most of which contain the word “Uber”
`
`at least as a partial component. Some registrations are based on actual use, while others are based
`
`on an intent-to-use basis.
`
`64. Many of Defendant’s federal trademark applications claim services in Classes 35
`
`and 42, in direct competition with Plaintiff Uber’s own Application.
`
`65.
`
`Uber Technologies recently created a new business division titled “Uber Design.”
`
`Upon information and belief, the services offered in connection with this division relate to the
`
`provision of digital tools, platforms, and guidelines to enable consumers to utilize Uber
`
`Technologies’ proprietary design assets in their own unique ventures. True and correct copies of
`
`a sample of Defendant’s usage of “Uber Design” in commerce, as well as Defendant’s brand
`
`webpage promoting "Uber Design” as fundamental to its brand composite, are hereto attached as
`
`Exhibit 13.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02320-PKC Document 1 Filed 03/16/20 Page 17 of 31
`
`66.
`
`On August 20, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel, Tzimopoulos Law, P.C., sent a formal
`
`cease and desist letter to Defendant, describing the numerous transgressions Plaintiff has suffered
`
`as a result of the consumer confusion between the two parties. Defendant did not respond or
`
`acknowledge receipt of the letter. A true and correct copy of this letter is hereto attached as Exhibit
`
`14.
`
`67.
`
`On September 12, 2019, Plaintiff received an Office Action response from the
`
`USPTO on the Application, indicating amongst other things that its registrability was at risk of
`
`being rejected due to a likelihood of confusing similarity to Uber Technologies mark applications
`
`and registrations, many of which are filed under the same classes of services and others w

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket